H M T LIMITED Vs. CHAYA SRIVATSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE management of HMT Limited being aggrieved by the order of the learned single judge dated, November 11 and 12, 1998, in Writ Petition No. 26334 of 1994 has preferred this writ appeal under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1964. The dispute relates to the disciplinary action taken against the respondent herein. The events leading to the filing of the writ petition be noted in the first instance briefly and they are as follows:

(2.) THE management of HMT Limited invited applications for the post of Deputy General manager (PR) prescribing certain qualifications and eligibility conditions. The respondent submitted an application for the post enclosing her bio-data. The management by its letter dated june 18, 1990, informed the respondent that she had been selected for the post and sought her acceptance. The respondent accepted the offer and reported for duty. The respondent was placed on probation and her probation period was extended by three months and ultimately she was confirmed in the post with effect from January 22, 1992, vide order dated May 8, 1992. Subsequently, the respondent was selected as Chief Public Relations Manager by the management and her willingness was sought. In the meantime, it appears that a pseudonymous letter dated June 14, 1993, was received by the Chairman and Managing Director of the appellant-company containing certain allegations against the respondent and requesting him to order for an enquiry. Thereafter, the co- ordinator, CNB of HMT wrote a letter on July 9, 1993, requesting the Director, Personnel, HMT to probe into the activities of the PR department. By a letter dated July 23, 1993, the Deputy General Manager, HMT called upon the respondent to make available certain documents and files in respect of subjects mentioned therein. It appears that at that stage, the respondent was shifted and posted as officer on special duty vide office order dated November 25, 1993. When the matter stood thus, on December 1, 1993, a charge-sheet was served on the respondent alleging that the respondent while working as Deputy general Manager (PR) committed various misconducts. The following are the heads of allegation of misconduct levelled against the respondent: (a) misrepresentation of experience while applying for the post of Deputy General Manger (PR) (b) while applying for the post of Chief Public Relations Manager, Air India, without routing the application through proper channel or without taking prior permission from the management; (c) engaging in private business by starting Mentors Association for personal gain; (d) finalising arrangements with the firm, Pushpa Enterprises, for the purpose of printing daily bulletin called "aaj KI KHABAR", which on investigation was found to be non-existent and the address furnished is a fictitious address apart from overwriting in the bills and other irregularities in the bills of Pushpa Enterprises; (e) as a coordinator for Apex Forum on Women in Public Sectors opening a S. B. account in her personal name for operating WIPS accounts and subsequently opening another account in the name of HMT, collecting huge money from different HMT units towards subscription from members of WIPS, not maintaining proper accounts in this regard making suspicious withdrawals from the said account; (f) bringing out unauthorisedly a book entitled "recipe FOR HEALTHY ORGANISATION" (g) collecting money towards the above from various private and public sector organisations, using HMT letter heads, writing to other organisations and projecting the whole matter as if it were HMT's official venture; (h) paying a sum of Rs. 70,000 to Kumar Printers unauthorisedly i. e. , without the consent of the company, collecting huge amounts from various organisations, inserting advertisements for her own book entitled IDEAL GIFT TO YOUR HUSBAND without paying any advertisement charges; (i) paying Rs. 25,000 to Kumar Printers even before receiving the bill, on four occasions; (j) conducting workshop on July 12, 13 and 14, 1993, and collecting participation fees from various participants, not maintaining proper accounts with regard to collection of money and expenditure, not taking permission for indulging in such activities; (k) improper payments made to Kumar Printers, Bangalore, (specific instance mentioned), involving in unauthorised transaction of printing and sale of book on "road ACCIDENT", collecting money for advertisements from various organisations without maintaining proper accounts, misusing the official position for personal gain with regard to various transactions as mentioned in paragraph 9 of the chargesheet; (l) in connection with 50 VHS tapes on Image Builders' produced by her at the cost of Rs. 125 for the purpose of sending to HMT units, subsequently selling the same for which no account was maintained and no sanction was obtained for fixing sale price; (m) retaining huge amount collected out of sale proceeds in her personal capacity without maintaining account; (n) non-issuance of cash receipts for money collected and failure to deposit the same with the company as and when collected. The articles of charge totalling eight in number, were framed under clauses 23. 1. 9, 23. 1. 25, 6. 1 read with 23. 1. 1, 23. 1. 4, 22 (a) read with 23. 1. 1, 23. 1. 16, 23. 1. 35 and 23. 1. 2 of the Conduct, discipline and Appeal Rules of the company (for short "cdar" ). The above mentioned clauses of the CDAR are reproduced hereinbelow for ready reference: "clause 6. 1: No employee shall directly or indirectly engage in any other occupation, employment, profession, calling etc. , whether for remuneration or not except with the permission of the Competent Authority; clause 22 (a): Every employee shall at all times maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty and conduct himself in a manner conducive to the best interests of the company. Clause 23. 1. 1: Breach of any provision of these Conduct Rules. Clause 23. 1. 2: Commission of any act subversive of discipline or of good behaviour. Clause 23. 1. 4: Fraud, theft, bribery, dishonesty in connection with the business or property of the company. Clause 23. 1. 9: Furnishing at the time of employment or thereafter, wrong or incomplete information or suppressing any information germane to the employment. Clause 23. 1. 16: Collection of any money without the permission of the competent authority. Clause 23. 1. 25: Applying for appointment to Government or any public sector/private sector undertaking without the permission of the management. Clause 23. 1. 35: Any other act or omission which the company considers as misconduct. "

(3.) IT appears that the respondent without submitting her explanation to the charge memo approached this Court in Writ Petition No. 51 of 1994 and this Court disposed of the said writ petition permitting the respondent to file her explanation to the charges on or before January 25, 1994. The enquiry officer after conducting an enquiry into the charges submitted his report dated july 25, 1994, holding that charges 3 and 6 are not proved and the remaining six charges are proved. Based on the said report of the enquiry officer, the management by its order dated august 2, 1994, dismissed the respondent from service as a disciplinary measure. The respondent being aggrieved by the above order of the management preferred Writ Petition No. 26334 of 1994 seeking quashing of the disciplinary action taken against her by the management. The management opposing the writ petition filed a statement of objections together with certain documents and the enquiry proceedings and justified the impugned action.